> USDC is USD backed, so one would conclude you actually do "hold" USD through the USDC security. I mean, I can see the thought pattern behind this, but it's w

> USDC is USD backed, so one would conclude you actually do "hold" USD through the USDC security. I mean, I can see the thought pattern behind this, but it's wrong. No court will uphold this interpretation. You don't hold the USD, you hold USDC, so absent the USDC financial instrument itself having contractual obligations (which it doesn't), the underlying assets matters not one whit. > It's pretty evident to me here there was a slight of hand here that was intentional. The wording was intentional chosen to weasel out of the FDIC backing while leading the customer on to believe it is FDIC backed. Oh, I'm certain the misleading was intentional. But that doesn't mean it was fradulent. At no point did they make a false statement--instead, you made an incorrect inference. You might have a cognizable false advertising claim, but nothing I've seen would lead me to conclude that a fraud claim could be upheld.